论文部分内容阅读
主体适格问题一直是马来西亚代表人诉讼中的疑难问题,其核心问题主要在于“代表人”的甄选问题上——即谁有资格代表当事人启动诉讼程序。马来西亚法院和学术界在这个问题上曾进行了长达20年的争论。法院首先在UEM南北大道中推翻了其之前认为个人有权代表公共利益启动代表人诉讼的主体资格,在10年后又在巴坤水坝案推翻UEM南北大道案的判决,承认一般民众在代表人诉讼的主体资格。法院在判决中认为,判断标准应当适用QSR Brands Bhd v.Suruha njaya Sekuriti&Anor案中提出的双重标准:(1)该诉讼本质上是否具有公共利益的性质;(2)服务对象:是否仅为公共利益所服务,而非个人利益。在符合上述两个条件的前提下,法院应当认可该个人的代表人诉讼的主体资格。马来西亚虽然属于英美法系国家,但是由这两个经典案例描绘出的变迁路径和判断标准还是有许多可以借鉴之处。
The question of the subject’s fitness has always been a difficult one in the litigation of the representative of Malaysia. The core issue lies mainly in the selection of the “representative” - that is, who is entitled to initiate litigation on behalf of the party. Malaysian courts and academics have held a 20-year debate on this issue. The court first overturned in the UEM North-South Avenue the qualifications of individuals who previously considered individuals entitled to initiate representations in the public interest and ruled again in the Bakun Dam 10 years later in the case of UEM North-South Avenue, recognizing the fact that the general public, The subject of the litigation qualification. In its judgment, the Court held that the criterion of judgment should apply to the double standards proposed in the case of QSR Brands Bhd v .uruha njaya Sekuriti & Anor: (1) whether the litigation is intrinsically of a public interest nature; (2) the client: is it only for the public good Services, rather than personal interests. Subject to the above two conditions, the court shall recognize the subject qualification of the individual’s representative action. Although Malaysia belongs to the Anglo-American legal system, there are still many lessons to be drawn from the transition paths and criteria of judgments drawn from these two classic cases.